ILLEGAL MILITARY ORDERS:
During WWII if a Platoon or Squad or Whatever was on patrol or headed to and 'objective' and encountered a SNIPER this what they did. The Sniper/Shooter may have and probably somewhere you couldn't spot him or her. If the suspected Sniper was on a building you were passing by they called in Air Support or Artillery fire. There could have been 5 Nuns hiding on the first floor or the basement. They leveled the building and moved on. Now, the guy that calls in the strike has a Lawyer sitting next to him or her. The President and CIA sign off on DRONE strikes. There are no ILLEGAL ORDERS ... You may disagree with the POLICY, but there are no 'Illegal orders' given.
Ron DeSantis was a NAVY JAG Lawyer that was assigned to a Seal Team Unit. They have people in the Military to prevent Unlawful Orders and them being carried out. CALM DOWN!!!
The Dangerous Myth of the "Illegal Order": How a Military Concept is Being Weaponized to Undermine Civilian Authority
The Dangerous Myth of the "Illegal Order": How a Military Concept is Being Weaponized to Undermine Civilian Authority
A recent social media post, circulating among veterans and conservative circles, cut through the modern fog of political warfare with a stark, historical analogy. It recounted a simple, brutal truth from the battlefields of World War II: if a unit was pinned down by a sniper in a building, they didn’t send in a negotiation team or file a warrant. They called in an air strike and leveled the building, neutralizing the threat and moving on to their objective. The post’s central, powerful conclusion was this: “There are no ILLEGAL ORDERS… You may disagree with the POLICY, but there are no 'Illegal orders' given.”
This sentiment, while deliberately provocative, touches on a critical and often misunderstood principle of military command and civilian control. From a conservative perspective, the contemporary political obsession with labeling presidential directives as “illegal orders” that military personnel should disobey is not a sign of heightened civic virtue. It is a dangerous, politically motivated corruption of a vital legal concept, one that undermines the chain of command, politicizes the military, and ultimately weakens the nation’s security.
The World War II Analogy: A Lesson in Wartime Reality
The WWII example, while extreme, serves to illustrate the fundamental nature of lawful military action. In a theater of war, the ultimate objective is to defeat the enemy and protect your own forces. The decision to destroy a building containing a hostile combatant—with the tragic but accepted risk of civilian casualties—is not an “illegal order.” It is a tactical decision made within the framework of the laws of armed conflict. The legality is judged by the military necessity of the target and the principle of proportionality, not by the certain outcome.
This stands in stark contrast to the modern caricature of warfare promoted in movies and media, where every action can be paused for a legal review and a perfect, risk-free outcome is not just desired, but expected. As the original post noted, today, a commander calling in that strike might very well have a JAG lawyer at his elbow. This is a testament to the U.S. military’s commitment to lawful conduct, but it does not change the underlying principle: the order itself, to neutralize a legitimate threat, is lawful. The lawyer is there to ensure the *execution* of the order complies with the Rules of Engagement and international law, not to second-guess the strategic or policy decision to engage the enemy.
This historical reality throws into sharp relief the hollowness of modern political rhetoric. When politicians or pundits loosely throw around accusations of “illegal orders,” they are often not referring to clear-cut war crimes. They are disagreeing with a policy or a strategic direction set by a civilian commander-in-chief they politically oppose.
The Role of JAG and the Myth of Rampant Illegality
The original post wisely highlights Governor Ron DeSantis’s background as a Navy JAG officer assigned to a SEAL team. This is a crucial point. The military has a robust, internal legal system specifically designed to prevent and address truly unlawful orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear, and every service member is trained on it. A service member is *obligated* to disobey an order that is manifestly illegal—such as an order to shoot an unarmed prisoner or to torture a detainee.
However, the key word is “manifestly.” This does not mean a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine can refuse an order simply because they find it morally questionable, politically disagreeable, or even strategically unwise. The system relies on a clear chain of command and trust. The presence of JAG lawyers embedded with units like SEAL teams is not evidence that the command is teetering on the brink of criminality; it is proof of a system working as intended. These lawyers provide real-time counsel to ensure complex operations remain within legal boundaries, thus protecting the troops and upholding the honor of the service.
The contemporary political narrative seeks to externalize and politicize this internal, legal process. It encourages low-ranking service members or intelligence community personnel to view their civilian leadership with suspicion and to preemptively disobey orders based on their personal political beliefs, masquerading as legal analysis. This is a recipe for chaos. A military where every order is subject to the individual conscience of thousands of service members is not a military at all; it is a mob in uniform.
The Politicization of Obedience: From Drone Strikes to Domestic Policy
The most pernicious application of this “illegal orders” rhetoric occurs in the domestic political sphere. We have seen prominent Democratic lawmakers release videos urging members of the military and intelligence community to disobey “illegal orders” from a sitting or future Republican president. The implication is that policies they disagree with—be it on border security, the deployment of the military to quell civil unrest, or the use of drone strikes against terrorist leaders—are not just bad policy, but are inherently unlawful.
This is a profound corruption of the concept. A drone strike, like the WWII air strike, is a tool of national policy. The President and the CIA, as part of the executive branch, have the constitutional and legal authority to authorize such strikes against enemy combatants. One can, and should, debate the policy. Is it creating more terrorists than it kills? Is it morally just? These are vital debates for a democracy. But to label the lawful command from the Commander-in-Chief to the military to execute a legally vetted strike as an “illegal order” is to deliberately blur the lines between policy disagreement and criminality.
This tactic serves two political purposes. First, it de-legitimizes the elected civilian authority in the eyes of the very people sworn to protect the nation under that authority. Second, it creates a pretext for bureaucratic insubordination, where unelected officials in the intelligence community or the officer corps might feel empowered to slow-walk, leak, or outright refuse to implement policies endorsed by the American electorate.
The conservative perspective holds that this is an assault on the very foundation of the republic. The American people elect a president to be the Commander-in-Chief. Civilian control of the military is sacrosanct. If the public dislikes the president’s policies, the remedy is at the ballot box, not through a silent coup by disgruntled bureaucrats or service members encouraged by partisan politicians.
A Call for Calm and Constitutional Fidelity
The original post’s final exhortation—“CALM DOWN!!!”—is more than just internet bravado. It is a plea for reason and a return to first principles. The framework for lawful military orders and the mechanisms to prevent true war crimes are already in place. They have been tested in the fiercest battles of the 20th and 21st centuries. They do not need to be replaced by the whims of social media mobs or the political maneuvering of partisan actors.
Conservatives believe in a strong national defense, and strength is impossible without unity of command and respect for the chain of command. We must reject the casual and politically motivated use of the “illegal order” accusation. It is a rhetorical weapon that damages the military’s professionalism, undermines the constitutional authority of the presidency, and sows distrust between the armed forces and the civilian population they are sworn to protect.
The building in WWII had to be leveled to stop the sniper and save American lives. Today, the pernicious myth of the rampant “illegal order” must be dismantled to protect the integrity of our military and the principle of civilian control. The order to do so is not just legal; it is necessary.
#Military #Democrats